Per a prominent UK development lawyer, approving a China's mega-embassy in London's eastern district could violate legal standards if ministers provided Chinese authorities with prior assurances about the development.
Potential Judicial Breaches
If PM Keir Starmer or his administration made promises to the Chinese government, it could constitute "actual or apparent prejudgment" of the planning application, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.
The analysis was requested by a coalition of local inhabitants opposed to the planned Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has attracted strong opposition due to safety, civil liberties and development issues.
Ministerial Scrutiny
Government officials now are under pressure to explain whether they confidentially promised Chinese officials they would progress the proposal after it had stalled under the previous Tory government.
The Chinese government reapplied for planning permission a short time after Labour took power last year, and Leader Xi Jinping mentioned the matter directly with Starmer during their initial call in August 2024.
Diplomatic Communications
Starmer allegedly told the Chinese president during the G20 summit in November 2024: "Your government raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone. We have since taken action by calling in that application."
Opponents of the planned complex, which would cover 20,000 square metres to become the biggest embassy in Europe, are getting ready to seek a legal challenge if the approval is authorized.
Mark Nygate, treasurer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, stated they were gathering funds to contest the decision.
Legal Obligations
The matter is semi-judicial, meaning the minister responsible – currently the housing secretary – must make his ruling objectively under the law and with an unbiased perspective.
In his analysis, Banner emphasized that "currently there has been no disclosure or official evidence as to whether any 'assurances' have been given" or what the content of such commitments might be.
Possible Ramifications
Nevertheless, he stated that if the PM had made a promise to Beijing, that "would appear by the reasonable and knowledgeable observer to create a genuine risk that the secretary of state had a closed mind."
He declared it was of "critical importance" that any relevant written evidence, including any documents indicating that promises were given, must be preserved by the government, which would be obliged to disclose them if a legal challenge occurs.
Diplomatic Tensions
Last week, China voiced "serious worry and deep displeasure" after ministers delayed their ruling on the embassy until 10 December.
A representative for the Chinese foreign ministry claimed China had acted with "the greatest sincerity and patience" over the matter and the UK should "promptly fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments, otherwise the British side shall bear all consequences."
Government Responses
Downing Street stated it did not "accept any claims of commitments or assurances" over the embassy application.
Luke de Pulford, executive director of the International Parliamentary Alliance on China, commented: "Lord Banner has laid down a marker. If the rumours are proven true and unlawful assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a catastrophic judicial review."
Additional Events
On Sunday, the government categorically denied any government influence in the decision to drop charges against two men, including a ex parliamentary researcher, accused of spying for China.
A government spokesperson declared "there had been absolutely no political interference with the evidence provided in this case" and denied reports that the official who drafted the evidence confidentially acknowledged it was influenced by political considerations.
News outlets indicated that one of the two men charged with espionage was carrying £4,000 in cash when detained by police under terrorism laws after arriving at Heathrow from China in February 2023. Both defendants deny any wrongdoing.
A police representative stated at the time: "A man in his 30s was subject to a stop at Heathrow airport under Schedule 3 of the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. He was not arrested and enquiries continued."
